Martin v. Boston Elevated Ry. Co.
| Decision Date | 06 March 1928 |
| Citation | 160 N.E. 300,262 Mass. 542 |
| Parties | MARTIN v. BOSTON ELEVATED RY. CO. |
| Court | United States State Supreme Judicial Court of Massachusetts Supreme Court |
OPINION TEXT STARTS HERE
Report from Superior Court, Middlesex County; Alonzo R. Weed, Judge.
Action of tort by Anna M. Martin against the Boston Elevated Railway Company to recover for personal injuries. Verdict was directed for defendant, and case reported. Judgment for defendant on the verdict.
James H. Vahey and Philip Mansfield, both of Boston, for plaintiff.
Charles S. Walkup, Jr., of Boston, for defendant.
This is an action of tort for personal injuries in which the judge directed a verdict for the defendant, and reported the case with a stipulation that, if his ruling were correct, judgment was to be entered for the defendant on the verdict; if erroneous, judgment was to be entered for the plaintiff in a stipulated sum.
The plaintiff's accident occurred on the platform of the defendant's subway station at Harvard Square, where she had changed from a subway train to take a car for Arlington Heights. There was evidence that a large crowd of people was on the platform. In the first part of her testimony in stating the cause of the accident she said that, as the people were trying to get on the car she desired to take, the conductor operated the brakes which closed the door, saying, ‘That will be all’; that a stout gentleman just ahead of her was boarding the car and the conductor with great force virtually pushed him off, in closing the door, and this man fell back on the the plaintiff, causing her to fall. After the plaintiff's attention had been directed to a signed statement previously made by her, she finally testified, in cross-examination, that the fact was that the crowd had knocked her down before the man came off the steps, and that she did not know the conductor pushed him, although he moved his hand toward the man; that whatever may have been the facts to which she previously had testified, she could not say that the conductor pushed the man off the car; that what caused her to fall was either somebody in the crowd or the force of the crowd. There was testimony tending to show that on the night of the accident the crowd was pushing, boisterous, turbulent and making considerable noise. Testimony was introduced to the effect that there was always a large crowd and a scramble for cars at about the hour of the plaintiff's accident; that guards had to take care of the crowd and had to tell the operators when...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Oesch v. St. Louis Public Service Co.
... ... Grubb v ... K. C. Rys., 230 S.W. 675; Kuhlen v. Boston & N. St ... Ry., 193 Mass. 341; Kennedy v. P. R. R., 32 ... Penn. Superior Ct. 623-627; Lehr v ... defendant carrier. Spagnol v. Pennsylvania Ry. Co., ... 279 Pa. 205, 123 A. 781; Martin v. Boston Elevated Ry ... Co. (Mass.), 160 N.E. 300; MacGilvray v. Boston ... Elevated Ry. Co., ... ...
-
Oesch v. St. Louis Pub. Serv. Co.
...or breach of duty on the part of the defendant carrier. Spagnol v. Pennsylvania Ry. Co., 279 Pa. 205, 123 Atl. 781; Martin v. Boston Elevated Ry. Co. (Mass.), 160 N.E. 300; MacGilvray v. Boston Elevated Ry. Co., 229 Mass. 55, 118 N.E. 166, 4 A.L.R. 283; Sack v. Davis, 245 Mass. 114, 139 N.E......
-
Dirring v. United States
...are cases where a witness' final testimony on cross-examination wipes out his contradictory testimony on direct. Martin v. Boston Elevated Ry., 1928, 262 Mass. 542, 160 N.E. 300; cf. Reiss v. United States, 1 Cir., 1963, 324 F.2d 680, 685, cert. den. Jacobs v. United States, 84 S.Ct. 667. H......
-
Crowley v. Swanson
...his. His testimony thus became of no value. Sullivan v. Boston Elevated Railway, 224 Mass. 405, 112 N. E. 1025;Martin v. Boston Elevated Railway, 262 Mass. 542, 160 N. E. 300. The plaintiff's case upon the identity of the defendant with the operator of the automobile which, upon the evidenc......